Maybe Blago is crazy like a fox
By David Neiwert Wednesday Dec 31, 2008 5:30am
We all kind of watched agape yesterday as Rod Blagojevich plowed ahead with his selection of Roland Burris to Obama's Senate seat yesterday, assuming that better sense would prevail eventually.
But perhaps not, according to Sam Stein:
Rod Blagojevich's decision to appoint Roland Burris to Illinois' vacant Senate seat, even as the governor faces intense criminal scrutiny, is being treated as a crazy political power grab. It also seems very likely to be permanent.
A legal scholar writes in to say that precedent surrounding the Senate's right to not seat certain members seems very likely to fall in Burris' favor.
"My reading of Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, is that the Senate probably can NOT constitutionally block Burris from being seated," writes the constitutional law professor. "Art. I, sec. 5 gives each House the power to judge the qualifications of its own members. Powell holds (inter alia) that the qualifications to be judged are those stated in the Constitution (see Art. I, sec. 3, cl. 3 and the 17th Amendment)."
"Burris has met all of those qualifications: he's over 30, been a US citizen for 9 years, he's an Illinois resident; he was appointed by the executive authority of the state to fill a vacancy, pursuant to Illinois law."
Even on the state level, Democrats seem fairly hamstrung when it comes to stopping Blagojevich. Secretary of State Jesse White's office has said it will not certify the Burris appointment. But, here again, the law may not be on their side.
Login or Register to post comments.
of Burris paying Blago off and then unseat him, prosecute him OR don't, and let him represent Illinois. Considering the chutzpah of the Illinois Governor, this is probably one guy who didn't pay him off and wasn't expecting to get the nod but what do I know?
Oops sorry. Didn't see you were already in the water when I jumped in.
Okay, I'll jump in the water first. My first feeling was that Burris was or is being used by Blago just so Blago could show his will and maybe stir up some shit. Then after hearing what Burris just recently said about Blago, none of it was good, I'm starting to believe Burris is an opportunist.
Burris should have known better and never accepted being part of this toxic, corrupt Governor's manipulation attempt.
Used to be you were innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of LAW. How quaint.
Blagojevich is "tainted" by being charged with this particular offense. This has severely damaged his credibility especially in replacing Obama's Senatorial seat. No one in this state can trust the guy's judgment.
Would you allow a "suspected" child molester to walk your children to school?
Blago plays the race card and Harry "Limp Noodle" Reid folds.
Just like he has folded each and every time since becoming Senate Majority Leader.
Blago is a master at Illinois politics. He's playing Reid like a violin.
It seems to me there is nothing that can be done about this appointment.
At this particular moment in time it appears that Blago has every right to appoint Burris.
The Senate can try to reject him all they like, but there may be a backlash.
Just my opinion.
This will give Limp Noodle Reid his wiggle clause.
Secretary White has no authority to refuse a constitutionally qualified candidate. The Illinois constitution is very clear; the Governor has full discretionary power to appoint any qualified individual. White can make as much noise as he likes, but he is legally required to certify Burris.
This appointment of Burris is more Constitutionally valid than the 2000 Pres. election results. The bad news is, legally, there is nothing anyone can do to change Blago's right to choose. The good news is, if you are not a fan of either of these two, you can vote for the Democratic challenger of Burris when the next election happens.
He gave Blago $25,000 for his so-called "reelection campaign."
That's a lot of coin. Even in Illinois. Why isn't the MSM mentioning this little factoid???
Those transcripts we heard read by Fitzgerald the other week were pretty damning for Blagojevich. I don't know if he will be found guilty, but I sure don't trust him as far as doing the honorable thing, especially when political decisions are to be made.
Really. Seems to me there's been the air of chutzpah in spades in this country for...um...at least eight years.
All these pundits railing about Blagojevich being 'defiant'...hmmmmmm...haven't heard A THING out of them about the 'in-your-face, I'll do WHAT/WHEN/HOW, and IF' I want administration......
however, that does not excuse Blago....just seems to me no one should be surprised when any government official has that attitude....
after all, look at the supreme example set for quite some time.
maybe now people will start to be more conscious about how they act.......hahahahahahahahaaaaa.........(just a 'joke' there, people)
Happy New Year to everyone.....hopefully the bus is turning away from the cliff................
I can see the cliff from my house, can I be the bus driver?
Happy New Year right back atcha (wink)
have at it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate driving. :)
Is Blago guilty of that any other pol would do in his position other than opening his big mouth and Fitz the closet Republican spying on him to record it?
I'm still trying to figure out what species of dead animal Blago has glued to the top of his head and whether or not it's something that Sarah Palin shot and killed.
looks about as real as John Bolton's or Joe Biden's.....hello? Hairclub for Men???
Maybe Blago and Spitzer were power mad and a little bit sociopathic, but you almost have to be to want to run for higher office IMO.
They both have one thing in common, screwing with the big money boys, especially BoA.
Siegelman and his main donator were chopped up by Big Tobacco.
Fishy
Why can't the senate just ignore the law and ignore the appointment ? Running ram-shod over the law never stopped BushCo. There's your precedent. Seems we have one set of rules and laws that must be adhered by the Legislative branch and another set of rules and laws for the Executive branch than can be broken without consequence.
I guess Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid only grow a pair when it involves a fellow Democrat.
1) Blagojevich is still governor of Illinois -- whether you like it or not -- personally, I hate it. And he retains all the powers of the state executive.
2) Impeachment is NOT a criminal prosecution, as many of us have pointed out over the past five years. The Illinois assembly could/should have impeached Blagojevich by now. They choose not to because no politician wants to open the impeachment doors and make the process work.
3) The US Senate has no legal right to refuse a seat to a constitutionally qualified candidate. If, somehow, they excreted this extra-constitutional authority then there is no reason they could refuse to seat any candidate for any reason: Republicans could refuse to seat Democrats; Democrats could refuse to seat Independents, etc, etc....
The Illinois Assembly had their chance to end this farce; they balked and tried to get the courts to do their dirty work. But regardless of their cowardliness and incompetence and regardless of the Governor's corruption, the people of Illinois are legally entitled to full representation in the US Senate.
The House committee here is still in the process of developing the articles of impeachment and to enhance their case has requested excerpts of conversations obtained by Patrick Fitzgerald's office. I have no idea how you expect to have this matter concluded by now if you expect due process to take its course. Blago is an ass, but is entitled to his constitutional rights. This isn't a dictatorship and the committee does not have the power to force its will without respecting due process. Because of that, it is unfair to call them incompetent cowards. And they are, contrary to your belief, moving this along as expeditiously as possible---and bear in mind that there is no historical precedent for this event in our state, ever.
Pat Quinn thinks that Blago will be removed by mid February, which is just fine with me. Sooner is better, but first and foremost we need to respect the constitutional structures and processes here. Two wrongs do not make it right.
Again, An Impeachment proceeding is not a criminal procedure. The due process for impeachment is laid out in our, Illinois' constitution. Both the burden of proof and the charges leading to impeachment are significantly less rigorous than required for criminal prosecution. In fact, the Illinois constitution's causes for impeachment are less restrictive than the US constitution's. The assembly does/did not need any criminal charges to impeach Gov. Blagojevich -- they simply needed the political will to do so.
There is actually another legal precedent that Reid can use to refuse to seat Burris:
Reid spokesman Jim Manley, by way of Ben Smith, has word on the Majority Leader's potential workaround:
In response to those who are asking how this is different from Powell v. McCormack, in which supreme court said House could not refuse to seat a member based on his alleged corruption and said only qualifications to be considered are those listed in the Constitution:
[W]e are not making a judgment about qualifications of appointee, but about whether appointment itself is tainted by fraud, which we believe we are entitled to do under Art. 1 s. 5.
This is like judging the integrity of an election, free from fraud or corruption. It's the process that led to the [appointment], not the appointee's fitness.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
That's exactly right. I think I mentioned this yesterday. This case can be distinguished from Powell because the appointment itself is suspected to be the product of fraud. The gov of Illinois was arraigned for just that, so asserting that suspicion is not fiction.
The legal arguments here are great. I would expect one of Burris' best defenses would be to say, ok, this is a different problem than Powell, but it's still not the Senate's place to judge elections (or appointments). That's something the Illinois Sec of State does. But, then, they're also claiming that Ill. Sec of State's refusal to certify the appointment is ministerial and, so, unimportant.
Ok, sorry, the case would be great, but I don't think it'll ever come to that. The Illinois Atty General hates Blagejovich and certainly won't bring a suit on Burris' behalf. I don't think the gov has any standing to sue. So Burris would have to bring the suit himself. Assuming there will at some point be a new governor in Illinois who will appoint a new senator, you gotta ask yourself how long Roland Burris will pursue a case to kick that senator out and insert himself, an appointee of an impeached governor, with no real constituency of his own, into a senate that will put him into a corner? I think if the Senate rejects him, he's done.
That said, Blagejovich is betting that the United States Senate is a spineless and cowardly body that will fold at the first whiff of conflict. Actually, not an entirely unreasonable bet.
The court is pretty clear in Powell v. McCormack that congress has no right to examine a candidate beyond their constitutional fitness. Reid may want to argue that he's not examining the candidate but the process, but that opens up the creeky door of Bush v. Gore. The selection of representatives has been held to be under the control of the States, and not open for Federal review -- outside of a few specific areas like the Voting Rights Act. If congress is to become the arbiter of fair selection processes, then what stops congress from invalidating elections based upon allegations of voter fraud? Clearly the constitution does not grant such sweeping review powers to the congress. And for the courts to grant such authority would invite disaster.
Yes, but that's my point. As you say, it would open up a creeky door, there is at least an argument on Reid's side. Which gets us to the courts, where you're going to need a plaintiff who's going to stick with it. You're arguing legal merits, and I agree with your reasoning more or less, but I'm guessing at how this might play out politically. I don't think it'll ever come to a final decision.
Burris would first ask a district court for an injunction then, after an expedited hearing, he would ask that the inevitable appeal go directly to the Supreme Court. Leave aside the spectre of Bush v. Gore that the Court is not eager to relive (for fear of having to change sides), but I think any court is likely to take their time with this, recognizing that this is being played out politically in Illinois, as I think it should be. The question is, will Burris pursue his claim once there's a new governor?
As I said, as a law school debate, the legal issues are pretty good. And if it is the in the states' authority to decide on representation, what do we make of the the Ill SOS refusal to certify the appointment? Anyway...
As I've pointed out elsewhere, Secretary White has not authority to review Gov. Blagojevich's appointment. If the appointment adheres to the constitutional requirements, the Illinois Secretary of State must validate it -- Secretary White has NO discretionary authority under Illinois law. Aside from Mr. Burris there are many citizens in Illinois, including myself, who have standing to bring suite against Mr. Reid. In Powell v. McCormack, Mr. Powell was join in his suite by people from his district. While Mr. Reid might think he's 'doing good', he is, in fact, denying Illinois full representation in the US Senate at a time in which federal monies will be distributed for state programs and building projects. Thus, politically, taxpayers in Illinois will rise up and demand representation once the Senate returns to session. So, politically this will probably backfire on Reid.
Ok, fair enough on standing. I was thinking about state gov't, and I don't think the state is going to take any part in eventual lawsuits. But, sure, any Illinois citizen can join in as a plaintiff on Burris' suit.
In any case, Jesse White just did refuse to accept Gov Blagejovich's appointment. So, while you say the SOS has no discretionary authority over a senatorial appointment, his certification seems to be a step in the process. And he's not signing it. So, while you may be correct, what is a right without a remedy? Your first step may be to ask a judge in Illinois to order a statewide elected official to sign a piece of paper (an issue with it's own set of problems). Or, he can claim the failure to certify is irrelevant and go straight to the Senate Monday morning, thereby handing the Senate the issue they may need. Either way, more time elapses and I'm still skeptical he'll ever be seated.
On the political fallout, I'm not sure I entirely agree either. Yes, Illinois will be short a senator for a time (even worse for the people in Rahm's district who have to wait for a special election), but we accept that from time to time because valid representation is also something we value. Happily for Illinois, our other senator is the Majority Whip and the absence of a jr. senator that the Democratic caucus would treat like plutonium shouldn't do too much damage to Illinois' share of federal projects. And I don't think Harry Reid's image problem is that he's too tough and inflexible. I don't think standing up to Rod Blagejovich is going to cause him any serious popularity problems. In fact, I'm surprised he's got it in him.
I've lived in Illinois most of my life and I haven't spoken to too many people who would feel terribly disenfranchised if the governor weren't allowed to fill Obama's seat. But I think we're talking about two different things here; you're on right v. wrong and I'm just speculating about how this all might play out. I'm probably more in agreement with you than you think on the question of what's right. Still, you seem to understand Illinois politics well and you can't believe that what's right has more to do with an actual outcome than what's politically likely.
Anyway, it is pretty entertaining. ...Off to stock up on liquor...
I didn't quite understand why the DA was putting forth charges against Blago before he actually carried out what he intended. If they had waited, they could of charged both him and whomever he placed in the Senate with corruption charges, and would have taken down two bad birds with one stone.
This case had facts not remotely similar to the one at hand.
Adam Clayton Powell was a Congressman accused, credibly, of criminal wrong-doing. The House failed to expel him over this, but when he was re-elected in 1966 despite the scandal, it refused to seat him on the grounds that he failed to meet the qualification for office of being of good moral character. He sued for his seat, and the SC agreed that the House, sitting as final judge of the qualifications of its members for election, could not make up new qualifications such as being of good moral character, but could only enforce those enumerated in the Constitution.
This case would only apply if the Senate were to try to invent a new qualification as an excuse to refuse to seat Burris. But Burris's qualifications are not in question here. In this case, unlike Powell, who won his re-election fair and square, it is the process of selection that is in question. The Senate cannot challenge Burris's seating on the basis of a corrupt selection process only if you believe that the intent of "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.", which sounds like it is giving each House the authority and responsibility to scrutinize the whole process of selection of its membership, is actually to exclude either House from looking into the selection process if that process happens to be an appointment rather than a vote of the people. This idea turns on the reading of "election" in the modern, narrow, sense of a "selection by popular vote". But "election" literally means any choice or selection, and in earlier times it retained this broader meaning. It would seem odd apply this phrase to either House if the Founders meant "election" in the modern, exclusively narrow sense of a "selection by popular vote", since Senators were not, at the time of the founding, elected by popular vote. They were elected as Burris has been, by appointment or vote of a state legislative body. The Founders, being mostly lawyers, were careful and perspicuous in their phrasing, and I can't see that they would have failed to give separate verbiage for the Senate if their intent was to deny that body scrutiny of the selection of its members. They wanted to save a few words, so they wrote something for both that only applied to one House?
It's a Democrat in a Senate seat. I'm not overly thrilled with Burris, but Blago could have done much much worse, and the rest of IL gov't was.
They haven't impeached him yet. Lisa Madigan tried to have him declared incompetent, but the courts overruled her. The IL gov't could have set up a special election, but they didn't want to spend the money.
They were content to leave the people of Illinois without representation (and Obama without a Democratic Senator) for as long as it takes to get rid of Blago. Which could be months, since the guy has no intention of resigning.
They were willing to wait until Pat Quinn could select his own politically-inspired choice. They wanted to keep playing politics. Blago said he'd let a special election happen, but heaven forfend the people get to use that power.
Blago may be a crook, but he did some good things as governor: He insured all the children of the state on a sliding scale so even self-employed people who make too much money for public aid could still afford heath care for their children. He provided free public preschool for all 3-4 y/os.
He ran on that platform. His Republican opponent said we couldn't afford to insure children and had no business expanding school. She lost. His Democratic Senate opponents refused to pass his funding plan of increasing corporate taxes, but he forced insuring and educating kids down their throats anyway as he'd campaigned he would. Plus, he did it without raising individual income taxes.
Yeah, he's a crook, but he's not been all bad. He actually fulfilled his campaign promises. Again, I'm not thrilled with his selection, but Burris isn't dirty so much as an opportunist, and it gets the people of Illinois a Senator from day one of the next session of Congress. In two years, the machine will have their next candidate prepped and ready to take it, regardless of how well Burris does.
I don't see this as a bad thing. Shocking, sure, but the IL State Senate had it's chance to act, but it had to act quickly, and it blew it.
He's still the governor. He's not been convicted (thought he probably will be--just b/c someone turned down your extortion attempt doesn't mean you aren't guilty of attempted extortion). Burris is qualified, even if he is an opportunist.
Jesse White's certification is ceremonial and not necessary. The Senate can't refuse to seat him unless they make up a reason.
Just deal with it. Blago could have put Jim Oberweis in there if he really wanted to mess with us.
Roland Burris is 71 years old and at the end of his political career. He has nothing to lose by accepting this appointment. He does have a decent track record of service here in IL but has lost the last four elections he ran in. If he decides to run again (which I am sure he would) I think he will be vulnerable, which is certainly a problem. Suffice it to say that while Burris is not all bad, there are far better and less politically vulnerable candidates out there, like Lisa Madigan, Jan Schaikowsky, or Tammy Duckworth. It behooves us to take a long term view of this proposition. And do remember that IL does have a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget.
While Blago did get the insurance plan implemented do recall that our state is billions of dollars in debt and can barely pay it's vendors within 3 to 6 months or more, and nobody has proposed a solution on how to close the financial gap. The long term solution is to raise taxes for both individuals and business, but being the shortsighted panderer he was, Blago wanted to put the entire burden on business.
If you are a small business that does a lot of state business, late payment cripples your cash flow. Instead of working with the General Assembly, he took a confrontational and unbending stance that cost him big time politically. It was his way or nothing because he was bent on furthering his political ambitions. And we, the citizens of Illinois pay for the deadlock that came from the egotistical pissing match between Blago, Emil Jones, and Mike Madigan. Blago could have been a better leader by being more compromising and putting public interest first, but nope, he is little more than a self centered sociopath with psychotic dreams of ambition and glory.
I found this under his Wikipedia entry --
"On December 14, 2008, Burris suggested himself as a possible caretaker for the United States Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, saying he would not run for reelection if appointed,[7] even though Governor Rod Blagojevich is the subject of a corruption charges for trying to seek bribes in a pay-to-play scheme for the empty Senate seat.[8] On December 30, 2008, Governor Blagojevich selected Burris."
Emphasis added, above ... it was the first I'd heard that Burris wouldn't seek re-election if appointed. Interesting. Gives Democrats ample time to groom a replacement.
Interesting quote you found and I have never heard it before either. I would like someone to get him to confirm this statement again publically. If he agrees not to run then his appointment is more palatible in my view.
There's no question that Burris is not the *best* choice, it's just that there could have been much much much worse options, since Blago was determined to use this power. Who couldn't see this coming?
Seriously, if he really wanted to say F-U, he could have appointed Jim Oberweis, racist extraordinaire, who's dying for a political seat, but can't get it through his thick head that the people of Illinois really don't like him.
I"m not worried about Burris being a seat-warmer. He'll lose in the primary in 2010, with any luck to Schakowsky or Lisa Madigan.
Yeah, our state is in debt b/c Blago pushed through on his campaign promises and funded insurance for children despite the fact Mike Madigan refused to pass the corporate tax increase to pay for it. I fail to understand why Mike Madigan and his cohorts have been given a media pass.
The people voted for insurance and education--those were the big media buys at the end of the last election cycle. People were all for increasing the corporate tax a bit in order to fund it.
Mike Madigan thought by blocking that tax increase, he could either force Blago to break his campaign promises or increase individual income taxes (which are still really low), either of which would leave him vulnerable in the next primary should daughter Lisa want the job.
They've all screwed up, but Blago gets all the bad press for some strange reason, despite doing what he said he'd do. He's done good things. I happen to believe that providing prenatal care to all and vaccinating and providing well-baby and physicals to children is really important to the well-being of the state.
I never understood why Mike Madigan didn't get half the heat Blago did, since the mess was his fault as much as Blago's. Again, Blago ran on providing those services and raising business taxes, not personal. He was elected, i.e., will of the people.
So he's confrontational. So's Daley. Remember Meigs Field?
He's such a greedy crazy jerk, though, I hope that they don't undo the good he managed. I easily see our remaining pols cutting the daylights out of All Kids and preschool to balance the budget.
Hey, Blago could have appointed Todd Stroger! There's some real fun that could have been had!
what people outside of Illinois fail to understand is that there are two or three Democratic parties in the state. Madigan has been strong-arming the state assembly for years; Daley runs Chicago like a military junta; and the Strogers run Cook country like Russian oligarchs. Blagojevich is an arrogant, corrupt jerk, but he certainly wouldn't have half the problems he has now, if he'd played ball with the other powers that be.
It might not even be a problem for the Senate since the SOS of IL is refusing to certify Burris. Unfortunately he may not have the legal right to do so. Time will tell.
Near as I can tell, Burris has good qualifications for the Senate. I predict he'll be seated and weather the storm.
Meanwhile, back to Blago: He'll claim he made a legitimate appointment of an honorable man, and, therefore, "no harm, no foul" as the lawyers say. That's a good centerpiece of his defense in court. All that telephone yak-yak about bribes? ... hey, just pullin' the FBI's chain ... yeah, knew I was being recorded, and just fuckin' with 'em ... heh heh ... ain't I loveable?
the dems won't go after a repug what any zeal at all, but they go after a guy smart enough to outwit their sorry asses at every turn. All this noisy posturing to please the press, but nothing to bring real justice to government leadership
The blago-nothing story is great cover to let booschainey out the door with a 'good riddance" instead of a war crimes tribunal. and it spoils Obama's presidency even before the ceremony.
It's a typical bag of shit and I'm not stomping on it. The democratic/progressive (if they are the same thing) will be derailed because the support Obama will need will be wasted and misdirected by this distraction.
Happy Blogging New Year!
Yep, agree totally.
I love you "Liberals" who think that he should be ousted because he is accused of something. THIS IS AMERICA. A thing called a COURT needs to find you guilty. I also love the "tainted" argument where Blagojavich can't be trusted...while you screamed and cried about all of the Obama/Ayers connection.
Liberals can't make up their mind. You're like little children whining to their parents...."Wah wah, it's not fair!!!"
But the shocking thing is Blago tried to sell the Senate seat. That now he has appointed Burris to fill. Even though Burris didn't pay him for it, the "taint" is that Blagojevich wanted something for it and planned to sell it.
That's really different from having a college professor throw a coffee for you.
I thought are state was bad, but how could citizens vote for either of these two ego maniacs?
If you read above, you will see that Rod ran on providing healthcare for every child in Illinois--even if the parents make too much money for public aid. You can insure your kids through the State of Illinois for ~$80/month each.
He also promised to provide free preschool for all 3 and 4 y/os. Considering the studies that came out last month showing that if kids are behind in kindergarten, they never catch up with reading and by 4th grade average 1-2 grade levels behind, preschool is a big deal, especially for people who can't afford to send their kids to Montessori.
He planned to fund these programs by increasing taxes on businesses, not by raising individual income taxes. His republican opponent ran on cutting the programs and not raising taxes. She was severely trounced: the people of Illinois preferred raising corporate taxes and providing services.
Mike Madigan, Senate President, foiled the tax increase, but was unable to get Rod to break his promise or try to raise income taxes. Result, the programs exist, but the budget is out-of-whack. Mike Madigan has tried to use this financial crisis to hold a Illinois Constitutional Convention to create a recall method for governor. The scuttlebutt is that he wants his daughter, Lisa, our Atty Gen. to have Rod's job.
Rod has taken all the blame in the media and Mike Madigan hasn't, and I'm not sure why since it's his fault as well.
Seriously, I don't know anyone who isn't utterly shocked at Rod. He tried to sell Obama's seat, and that's just jaw-droppingly corrupt. He's apparently an ego-maniac, which on one hand, you sort of have to be to run for office, but on the other, he's really crazy-a$$ greedy.
Politics have always been dirty, but Blago is taking them to new lows. I'm bummed, but I really don't think the Burris appointment is that bad, that corrupted, or should be protested.
It's better than it could have been and we'll have representation from day one of the next session. So be it.
"Mike Madigan has tried to use this financial crisis to hold a Illinois Constitutional Convention to create a recall method for governor. The scuttlebutt is that he wants his daughter, Lisa, our Atty Gen. to have Rod's job."
Lisa pulled that dumb grand standing move of trying to get the supreme court to oust Blago. No one believed that her "legal" arguments had any merit in the least and the case was promptly tossed. It was such an obvious publicity ploy that thinking voters are hopefully put off by it. Her first move in her run for the governorship was trying to use the electorate in a time of crisis. How nice.
Sounds an awful lot like BushCo, don't you think. This latest state of affairs says more about how extensive 'executive discretion' is in our political system that anything else. One of the reasons for the Revolution in the first place was unfettered executive power.
Holy corruption, Batman!
If they really don't want Burriss in there, 2/3 can expel him.
But that ain't gonna happen.
Blago wins again!!!
{ Deleted, SiteMonitor}
and spamming every thread here. What a wanker.
when I heard that he wanted to sell Obama's seat, I was insulted. But after eight years of truly Republican corruption, Blago is just a beginner. He got caught, and he is now forced to play by the book. Of course, there are a lot of people who wants him out just because they want to take his place. That's the real reason.
Now, I truly believe that we are moving out of Iraq. Effective today, the Green Zone in Bahgdad, Iraqi forces took over the Green Zone. I bet Eric Prince is really pissed!
This is utterly ridiculous and frankly unAmerican. Now US attorney Fitzgerald wants a NINETY DAY EXTENSION before going for an indictment. And yet SO MANY have convinced yourself you know the facts about this Governor and are ready to lynch. There is way more at stake here than this Governor. Oh and by the way,I'm sure Bank of America is very happy since the Governor threatened them stating the state of Illinois will do no business with them for starving Illinois businesses by withholding OUR FUCKING TAX DOLLARS so they can continue purchasing other banks both commercial and investment. I have come to the conclusion that Americans are about the dumbest people on the planet these days.
Login or Register to post comments.